‘DEI’ has become too divisive — it’s time for a rebrand 

Some claim the job market in this country is as simple as black and white.  

A recent lawsuit, spearheaded by the group Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences, is suing Northwestern University Law School for “hiring women and racial minorities with mediocre and undistinguished records over white men who have better credentials, better scholarship, and better teaching ability.”  

Similarly, in a recent interview on Newsmax, Sebastian Gorka mocked Vice President Kamala Harris, saying, “She’s a DEI hire, right? She’s a woman. She’s colored. Therefore, she’s got to be good.”   

It has been almost a year since 13 state attorneys general — all associated with the Republican Party — threatened legal action against leaders of the top Fortune 100 companies in the U.S., claiming opening the door to hiring persons of color with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives illegally closes the door to white applicants. 

Signed by AGs from states including Kansas, Alabama, Arkansas and West Virginia, the letter reads, “We urge you to immediately cease any unlawful race-based quotas or preferences your company has adopted for its employment and contracting practices.”  

America First Legal President Stephen Miller recently joined in a lawsuit against Expedia for discriminating against white males in its hiring practices. The amended complaint demanding a jury trial asserts, “Like other major American corporations, Expedia has embraced illegal practices, quotas, and more insidious means to ‘diversify’ its workplace at the expense of merit.” 

Specifically, the suit claims the “nondiverse” candidate named in the case, Michael Kascsak, was not hired because he is “white, male, straight, and forty-nine years old.” 

A 2024 Bridge Partners report shows that leaders are almost evenly divided on the subject of political influence on DEI efforts. The report shows that 52 percent of CEOs say “the political climate has had no impact on their DEI efforts,” while “47.5% have reported at least some impact.” 

The legal system is also split ideologically over efforts to fund businesses for women of color. 

Hello Alice, a fintech company based in Houston that provides grants and training to 1.5 million small business owners, prevailed recently in the lawsuit America First Legal brought against the owners on grounds of discrimination against white business owners. 

Yet earlier this month a federal appeals court ordered The Fearless Foundation, a Black-women-owned venture capital firm based in Atlanta, to suspend its Fearless Fund offering grants to Black women business owners, claiming it is discriminatory and violates the Civil Rights Act of 1966. 

Edward Blum, president of The American Alliance for Equal Rights, which filed the lawsuit, said denying non-Black people a chance to win a grant denies their civil rights. “Significant majorities of all Americans believe that an individual’s race should not be a factor in our nation’s public policies,” Blum wrote. 

It seems the solution to this highly litigious environment, for or against DEI, comes down to wording and messaging. To close these gaps, it is urgent that we replace the doomed acronym with fresh language of access, engagement, community, opportunity and fairness, which few can object to on principle. 

It is necessary to turn the conversation of diversity back to language emphasizing the measurable positive results for employers, employees, leaders, investors, clients and customers. It is time to demonstrate the business gains when corporations broaden the gates of entry across a range of identities, including race, ethnicity, age, experience, ability, geography and religion. 

The facts are explicit: A more inclusive workplace environment has proven to be not just a better experience, but also more creative and innovative — with significant financial returns. 

The 2023 report from Enterprise Strategy Group and TechTarget measures the return on investment of DEI programs, according to levels of the program’s maturity. 

More than 71 percent of leaders of mature programs state they are three times more likely to view business outcomes and performance as positive than those in the early stages of DEI. This group of leaders also reported their companies had the highest returns on investment. 

So why not have the widest representation possible? 

Many favor this approach as most Americans consider DEI programs a positive shift. A new report from The Washington Post and Ipsos shows that six in 10 Americans, or 62 percent of those surveyed, report that programs aimed at offering internships for underrepresented groups as well as anti-bias trainings are “a good thing.” 

Almost 70 percent of those surveyed said offering more detailed definitions of the programs’ offerings was a benefit. In other words, the wording matters. 

For some, diversity, equity and inclusion are trigger words for those claiming racial bias against white persons in hiring, promotion and retention. 

To address the post-pandemic labor crisis of filling jobs across all sectors, levels and experience with deserving candidates representing the U.S. population, leaders need to initiate a coherent and cohesive response. They must resuscitate their efforts to have a workforce that mirrors their customer and consumer base by abandoning the DEI acronym and instead using language of human justice that would be impossible to reject. 

As Thurgood Marshall, the nation’s first Black Supreme Court justice, said in 1992, “I wish I could say that racism and prejudice were only distant memories. … We must dissent because America can do better, because America has no choice but to do better.” 

Barron Witherspoon, Sr. is the author of “The Black Exec and The Seven Myths,” a TEDX speaker, and serves as a second vice chair on Tuskegee University’s Board of Trustees.